Page 1

MGMT 597 Discussion Week 1 Part 1

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com Contract law may seem simple on its surface. At its base you need an offer plus acceptance supported by consideration. That seems easy enough. However, there are endless nuances when it comes to contract law and numerous ways a contract can go wrong. In keeping with the TCO for this week (restated at the top of this page), it's not enough that we are able to define a contract. In order to have a good grasp of contract law, I think it's important to know a bit about the sources and origins of contract law, and some of the theories that are used to interpret contracts. So, what are some of the sources of contract law? How has contract law evolved over time? Also, please take a look at Case 9.1 (Bickham v. Washington Bank & Trust) on page 164 of your text. What do you guys think about this case? Did the objective theory of contracts work here? Do you agree with the court's decision?

Question Class, consideration is another of the essential elements in contract formation. I think it's fairly clear that in order to enter into a valid contract, you must have an offer and an acceptance. That is logical. What may not be quite as clear is the concept of consideration. Some


of you have mentioned it, but let's have a thorough discussion of what consideration is. What is consideration? Why do you think the law requires consideration to be present in order for a contact to be considered valid and binding? What happens if consideration is lacking? Are there any ways lacking consideration may be overcome?

Question

Elements of a Contract

Take a look at the Contract you pulled from your records when reading our Week 1 Introduction. What is the Offer and what is the Acceptance? What consideration was given by both parties to the contract? What other clauses attracted your attention--Limited Warranty and Disclaimer of Implied Warranties? Conflict Resolution? ******************************************************

MGMT 597 Discussion Week 1 Part 2

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com


Class, after viewing this video was there an offer of a lease for the equipment? If so, how long was the lease? What price was the lease in the offer? Was there an acceptance? What exactly was accepted if there was an acceptance? We will see that trying to answer all of these questions will lead us to quite a bit of uncertainty, even from our objective viewpoint of trying to determine whether a contract was formed. Remember that we should approach this video and our question of whether there was an offer or acceptance from the point of view of a judge who is asked to view the video and decide whether a contract.

Question

Let’s assume for the moment that a contract is not formed in the video because a judge finds that the language used is not sufficiently definite to constitute an enforceable contract. Is the salesman out of luck? What about promissory estoppel as another means for the salesman to obtain a remedy for allowing the equipment to be used for one month? ******************************************************

MGMT 597 Final Exam 1

For more classes visit


www.snaptutorial.com Question 1. Question : (TCO A, C) Major Media Station, which broadcasts TV and radio programs around the country, contracts with shock jock Don Marco, who hosts the station’s most successful morning drive radio program in the country: Mark My Words. The program consists of traffic and sports updates, interviews with sports figures and celebrities, and Mark’s Words, which are in the nature of rants and opinions on whatever topic of interest the host decides to focus on, including news articles and happenings around the country and locally. Audience participation is encouraged by way of phone calls to the station during the program.

On more than one occasion, Mark My Words has made national news because of controversial statements made by the host regarding people’s looks, religion, lack of intelligence, actions, race, etc. In fact, the contract between Major Media Station and Don Marco specifies that Mark My Words is While sales agents generally warrant the quality of the goods they sell, Petunia specifically told Astilbe not to make any warranties on the bulbs she sells. Further, Petunia wrote each of her customers to inform them of this policy. About two months later, Astilbe made a prohibited warranty in order to sell Tulip 1,000 Gladioli bulbs. Tulip was an established customer who knew that Astilbe was acting on Petunia's behalf and who also had been informed of Petunia’s warranty policy, but who honestly forgot about the policy while dealing with Astilbe and truly thought Astilbe had authority to make the warranty. Is Petunia contractually liable to Tulip here? Is Astilbe liable to Tulip?


******************************************************

MGMT 597 Final Exam 2

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com 1.Question:

(TCO A, C) Jim worked for AAA Job Shop, Inc. for over 30 years. Two months before Jim retired, the head of human resources told Jim that the company would pay for health insurance for Jim and his wife for the remainder of his life, and for his wife’s life if she were to survive him, and handed Jim a letter from the company describing this. Jim had always known that the company provided this benefit to a few of its select employees. Jim didn’t really expect that he would receive it, although he had secretly hoped so for some time. Four years after retirement, Jim contracted cancer and incurred substantial medical bills under his insurance plan. Jim then received a letter from his former employer saying that the employer was discontinuing its payment of health hope that a franchisor might make the software part of its required franchisee package. Jennifer wants to keep the business separate from her personal affairs, so she has set up separate checking accounts,


separate phone lines, and has set up a fictitious business name that does not use her name. She has filed a fictitious business name statement in the appropriate state office. She has written a will in which she has declared that in the event of her death, her business and personal assets and liabilities are to be kept separate, just as they were during her life. Her personal checks say, “Jennifer Lones, personal account only.� Discuss the extent to which Jennifer has insulated her personal assets from any business losses.

MGMT 597 Week 1 Homework Assignment (2 Sets)

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com MGMT 597 Week 1 Homework Assignment

case in chapter 9.4

case in chapter 10.7

case in chapter 11.4


case in chapter 13.1 ******************************************************

MGMT 597 Week 2 Discussion Part 1 Statute of Frauds

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com MGMT 597 Week 2 Discussion Part 1 Statute of Frauds ******************************************************

MGMT 597 Week 2 Discussion Part 2 Revocation of Acceptance of Goods

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com


MGMT 597 Week 2 Discussion Part 2 Revocation of Acceptance of Goods ******************************************************

MGMT 597 Week 2 Homework Assignment (2 Sets)

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com MGMT 597 Week 2 Homework Assignment

14.2 Real Property

16.8 Specific Performance

18.2 Good or Service

20.3 Revocation of Acceptance ******************************************************


MGMT 597 Week 3 Discussion Part 1 Negotiable Instrument

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com MGMT 597 Week 3 Discussion Part 1 Negotiable Instrument

******************************************************

MGMT 597 Week 3 Discussion Part 2 Secured Transactions

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com MGMT 597 Week 3 Discussion Part 2 Secured Transactions ******************************************************


MGMT 597 Week 3 Homework Problems(2 Sets)

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com )-Problem Chapter 22.10 Reference to Another Agreement - Holly Hill Acres, Ltd. (Holly Hill), purchased land from Rogers and Blythe. As part of its consideration, Holly Hill gave Rogers and Blythe a promissory note and purchase money mortgage. Does the reference to the mortgage in the note cause it to be nonnegotiable?Holly Hill Acres, Ltd. v. Charter Bank of Gainesville, 314 So.2d 209, Web 1975 Fla.App. Lexis 13715 (Court of Appeal of Florida) 2) Problem Chapter 23.8 - Business Ethics - Anthony and Dolores Angelini entered into a contract with Lustro Aluminum Products, Inc. (Lustro). Under the contract, Lustro agreed to replace exterior veneer General, as a holder in due course, demanded payment of the note from the Angelinis. Who wins? General Investment Corporation v. Angelini, 278 A.2d 193, Web 1971 N.J. Lexis 263 (Supreme Court of New Jersey) 3) Problem Chapter 24.13 - Business Ethics - Warren and Kristina Mahaffey were approached by a salesman from the Five Star Solar Screens Company (Five Star). The salesman offered to install insulation in their home ‌.. Did Five Star Solar Screens Company act ethically in this case? Can the Mahaffeys successfully assert the


defense of breach of contract by Five Star against the enforcement of the note by Mortgage Finance? Mahaffey v. Investor’s National Security Company, 103 Nev. 615, 747 P.2d 890, Web 1987 Nev. Lexis 1875 (Supreme Court of Nevada) 4) Problem Chapter 27.2- Priority of Security Agreements - World Wide Tracers, Inc. (World Wide), sold certain of its assets and properties, including equipment, furniture, uniforms, accounts receivable, and contract rights, to Metropolitan Protection, Inc. (Metropolitan)….Bank filed a counterclaim, asserting its perfected security interest in Metropolitan’s accounts receivable. Who wins? World Wide Tracers, Inc. v. Metropolitan Protection, Inc., 384 N.W.2d 442, Web 1986 Minn. Lexis 753 (Supreme Court of Minnesota) ******************************************************

MGMT 597 Week 4 Discussion Part 1 Your Property Rights

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com MGMT 597 Week 4 Discussion Part 1 Your Property Rights ******************************************************


MGMT 597 Week 4 Homework Assignment (2 Sets)

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com Week #4 Homework Assignment Chapter # 47.1 For 12 years Theodore Buder’s father has been giving his minor grandchildren substantial gifts. Theodore and his wife had divorced, and the cash gifts that were giving were in the form of a check made payable to the children. Theodore was responsible for safeguarding the money and invested it on behalf of the children. Theodore had invested in ‘blue chip’ stocks and he invested in penny stocks. Now the stocks were purchased in Theodore’s name as custodian for the children as required by the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (UGMA). All of the penny stocks, except one, suffered substantial losses. Now Theodore’s ex-wife, Sartore, sued him alleging that he had breached his fiduciary duty owed to the children under the UGMA. She’s trying to recover the funds lost by Theodore’s lost by the investments. Who wins?Chapter # 48.8 The Naab’s purchased a tract of land in the subdivision of Williamstown, West Virginia. The tract of land that they purchased included a house and a small concrete garage on the property. Evidence showed that the garage had been erected sometime prior to


20 years earlier by one of the Naab’s predecessors in title. Now two years after the purchase the Nolans purchased a lot contiguous to that owned by the Naabs. The following year the Nolans had their property surveyed and discovered that one corner of the Naab’s garage encroached 1.22 feet onto the Nolan’s property and the other corner encroached 0.91 feet over the property line. The Nolans requested that the Naabs remove the garage from their property. When the Naabs refused, a lawsuit ensured. Who wins? Chapter # 49.2 Sharon Love entered into a written lease agreement with Monarch for apartment 4 at 441 Winfield in Topeka, Kansas. After moving in, Ms. Love noticed the apartment had a serious problem with termites. She notified Monarch about the termite problem and they arranged for the apartment to be fumigated. When the problem persisted, Monarch moved Ms. Love to another apartment. When Ms. Love moved into the new apartment she discovered it had roaches. Again Ms. Love complained to Monarch about the roaches and Monarch had the apartment sprayed. When the problem persisted, Ms. Love vacated the premises. Did Ms. Love lawfully terminate the lease? Who wins? Chapter # 49.5 The Chavez leased a house they owned in Arizona to the Diaz. The lease clearly stated that no pets were allowed on the premises without prior written approval of the Chavez. The Diazs kept two dogs on the property a Pit Bull and a half Pit Bull and half Rottweiler without the landlords consent. Two weeks later the dogs escaped and attacked and injured Josephine Gibbons. The Gibbons sued the landlords for damages. Are the landlords liable? Are the tenants liable? ******************************************************


MGMT 597 Week 5 Discussion Part 1 Agency

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com MGMT 597 Week 5 Discussion Part 1 Agency ******************************************************

MGMT 597 Week 5 Discussion Part 2 Partnerships General And Limited

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com MGMT 597 Week 5 Discussion Part 2 Partnerships General And Limited ******************************************************


MGMT 597 Week 5 Homework Assignment (2 Sets)

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com MGMT 597 Week 5 Homework Assignment ******************************************************

MGMT 597 Week 5 You Decide

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com MGMT 597 Week 5 You Decide ******************************************************


MGMT 597 Week 6 Course Project 14.2 Guaranty Contract Page v. Gulf Coast Motors

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com MGMT 597 Week 6 Course Project 14.2 Guaranty Contract Page v. Gulf Coast Motors ******************************************************

MGMT 597 Week 6 Course Project 37.2 Duty of Care Smith v. Van Gorkom

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com MGMT 597 Week 6 Course Project 37.2 Duty of Care Smith v. Van Gorkom


******************************************************

MGMT 597 Week 6 Course Project 39.1 Siva v. 1138 LLC

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com MGMT 597 Week 6 Course Project 39.1 Siva v. 1138 LLC ******************************************************

MGMT 597 Week 6 Discussion Part 1 Sarbanes-Oxley Act

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com


MGMT 597 Week 6 Discussion Part 1 Sarbanes-Oxley Act ******************************************************

MGMT 597 Week 6 Discussion Part 2 Piercing The Corporate Veil

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com MGMT 597 Week 6 Discussion Part 2 Piercing The Corporate Veil ******************************************************

MGMT 597 Week 6 Homework Assignment (2 Sets)

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com


MGMT 597 Week 6 Homework Assignment 36.11 Business Ethics John A. Goodman was a real estate salesman in the state of Washington. Goodman sold to Darden, Doman & Stafford Associates (DDS), a general partnership, an apartment building that needed extensive renovation. Goodman represented that he personally had experience in renovation work. During the course of negotiations on a renovation contract, Goodman informed the managing partner of DDS that he would be forming a corporation to do the work. A contract was executed in August between DDS and “Building Design and Development (In Formation), John A. Goodman, President.” The contract required the renovation work to be completed by October 15. Goodman immediately subcontracted the work, but the renovation was not completed on time. DDS also found that the work that was completed was of poor quality. Goodman did not file the articles of incorporation for his new corporation until November 1. The partners of DDS sued Goodman to hold him liable for the renovation contracts. Goodman denied personal liability. Was it ethical for Goodman to deny liability? Is Goodman personally liable? Goodman v. Darden, Doman & Stafford Associates, 100 Wn.2d 476, 670 P.2d 648, Web 1983 Wash. Lexis 1776 (Supreme Court of Washington)

37.5 Dividends Gay &’s Super Markets, Inc. (Super Markets), was a corporation formed under the laws of the state of Maine. Hannaford Bros. Company held 51 percent of the corporation &’s common stock. Lawrence F. Gay and his brother Carrol were both minority shareholders in Super Markets. Lawrence Gay was also the manager of the corporation &’s store at Machias, Maine. One day, he was dismissed from his job. At the meeting of Super Markets &’s board of directors, a decision was made not to declare a stock dividend for the prior year. The directors cited expected losses from increased competition and the expense of opening a new store as reasons for not


paying a dividend. Lawrence Gay claims that the reason for not paying a dividend was to force him to sell his shares in Super Markets. Lawrence sued to force the corporation to declare a dividend. Who wins? Gay v. Gay &’s Super Markets, Inc., 343 A.2d 577, Web 1975 Me. Lexis 391 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine)

37.7 Duty of Loyalty Lawrence Gaffney was the president and general manager of Ideal Tape Company (Ideal). Ideal, which was a subsidiary of Chelsea Industries, Inc. (Chelsea), was engaged in the business of manufacturing pressure-sensitive tape. Gaffney recruited three other Ideal executives to join him in starting a tape manufacturing business. The four men remained at Ideal for the two years it took them to plan the new enterprise. During this time, they used their positions at Ideal to travel around the country to gather business ideas, recruit potential customers, and purchase equipment for their business. At no time did they reveal to Chelsea their intention to open a competing business. The new business was incorporated as Action Manufacturing Company (Action). When executives at Chelsea discovered the existence of the new venture, Gaffney and the others resigned from Chelsea. Chelsea sued them for damages. Who wins? Chelsea Industries, Inc. v. Gaffney, 389 Mass. 1, 449 N.E.2d 320,Web 1983 Mass. Lexis 1413 (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts)

39.9 Duty of Loyalty Ally is a member and a manager of a managermanaged limited liability company called Movers & You, LLC, a moving company. The main business of Movers & You, LLC, is moving large corporations from old office space to new office space in other buildings. After Ally has been a member-manager of Movers


& You, LLC, for several years, she decides to join her friend Lana and form another LLC, called Lana & Me, LLC. This new LLC provides moving services that move large corporations from old office space to new office space. Ally becomes a member-manager of Lana & Me, LLC, while retaining her member-manager position at Movers & You, LLC. Ally does not disclose her new position at Lana & Me, LLC, to the other members or managers of Movers & You, LLC. Several years later, the other members of Movers & You, LLC, discover Ally’s other ownership and management position at Lana & Me, LLC. Movers & You, LLC, sues Ally to recover damages for her working for Lana & Me, LLC. Is Ally liable?

******************************************************

MGMT 597 Week 7 Homework Questions (2 Sets)

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com Chapter 41.2 Definition of Security The Farmer’s Cooperative of Arkansas and Oklahoma (Co-Op) was an agricultural cooperative that had


approximately 23,000 members. To raise money to support its general business operations, Co-Op sold to investors promissory notes that were payable upon demand. Co-Op offered the notes to both members and non-members, advertised the notes as an “investment program,” and offered an interest rate higher than that available on savings accounts at financial institutions. More than 1,600 people purchased the notes, worth a total of $10 million. Subsequently, Co-Op filed for bankruptcy. A class of holders of the notes filed suit against Ernst & Young, a national firm of certified public accountants that had audited Co-Op’s financial statements, alleging that Ernst & Young had violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Are the notes issued by Co-Op “securities”? Reeves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 110 S.Ct. 945, 108 L.Ed.2d 47, Web 1990 U.S. Lexis 1051 (Supreme Court of the United States) Chapter 41.7 Insider Trading Donald C. Hoodes was the chief executive officer of the Sullair Corporation. As an officer of the corporation, he was regularly granted stock options to purchase stock of the company at a discount. On July 20, Hoodes sold 6,000 shares of Sullair common stock for $38,350. On July 31, Sullair terminated Hoodes as an officer of the corporation. On August 20, Hoodes exercised options to purchase 6,000 shares of Sullair stock that cost Hoodes $3.01 per share ($18,060) at the time they were trading at $4.50 per share ($27,000). Hoodes did not possess material nonpublic information about Sullair when he sold or purchased the securities of the company. The corporation brought suit against Hoodes to recover the profits Hoodes made on these trades. Who wins? Sullair Corporation v. Hoodes, 672 F.Supp. 337, Web 1987 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10152 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) Chapter 51.5


Ultramares Doctrine Texscan Corporation (Texscan) was a corporation located in Phoenix, Arizona. The company was audited by Coopers & Lybrand (Coopers), a national CPA firm that prepared audited financial statements for the company. The Lindner Fund, Inc., and the Lindner Dividend Fund, Inc. (Lindner Funds), were mutual funds that invested in securities of companies. After receiving and reviewing the audited financial statements of Texscan, Lindner Funds purchased securities in the company. Thereafter, Texscan suffered financial difficulties, and Lindner Funds suffered substantial losses on its investment. Lindner Funds sued Coopers, alleging that Coopers was negligent in conducting the audit and preparing Texscan’s financial statements. Can Coopers be held liable to Lindner Funds for accounting malpractice under the Ultramares doctrine, Section 552 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, or the foreseeability standard? Lindner Fund v. Abney, 770 S.W.2d 437, Web 1989 Mo.App. Lexis 490 (Court of Appeals of Missouri) Chapter 51.7 Accountant–Client Privilege For five years, Chaple, an accountant licensed by the state of Georgia, provided accounting services to Roberts and several corporations in which Roberts was an officer and shareholder (collectively called Roberts). During this period, Roberts provided Chaple with confidential information, with the expectation that this information would not be disclosed to third parties. Georgia statutes provide for an accountant–client privilege. When the IRS began investigating Roberts, Chaple, voluntarily and without being subject to a subpoena, released some of this confidential information about Roberts to the IRS. Roberts sued Chaple, seeking an injunction to prevent further disclosure, requesting return of all information in Chaple’s possession, and seeking monetary damages. Who wins? Roberts v. Chaple, 187 Ga.App. 123, 369 S.E.2d 482, Web 1988 Ga.App. Lexis 554 (Court of Appeals of Georgia)


******************************************************

Profile for richardson.macdonald4.3.5.6645

MGMT 597 Education Specialist -snaptutorial.com  

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com Contract law may seem simple on its surface. At its base you need an offer plus acceptance sup...

MGMT 597 Education Specialist -snaptutorial.com  

For more classes visit www.snaptutorial.com Contract law may seem simple on its surface. At its base you need an offer plus acceptance sup...

Advertisement